Rep Shimkus has tweaked his discussion TSCA reform draft bill “Chemicals in Commerce Act” comparison here.  He’s scheduled another hearing April 20, 2014.  Some key differences I spotted include:

Gone are references to:

>  "Best Available Science" and requirements to use quality data, instead EPA is to "consider" various factors. Apparently deemed too high a hurdle so that EPA can use loosey-goosey (non-GLP) data, if they want.  At least weight of scientific evidence is still in there.
>  "Safety Determinations" - now they are "risk evaluations" that may ease EPA's burden of proof.  There are still high and low priority chemicals and conclusions on whether or not chemicals present or will present significant risk (which are final actions). Makes explicit that risk evaluations are not to take economics into consideration.
>  "net benefits" - no need for EPA to get hung up quantifying costs and benefits, although the regulations still need to be "cost-effective."

Explicitly throws in consideration of exposed "subpopulations" in more places.

Puts back in consideration of regulating disposal and articles

Substitutes "significant risk" for "unreasonable risk" in some sections, particularly for setting priorities.

Adds in a bit on developing "guidance" on aggregate exposures - recognizing no one knows how to deal with that yet.

Makes it a tad easier for EPA to get additional information to support risk evaluations and prioritization.

Deadlines: 4 years to do risk evaluations of "high priority" chemicals and 3 years to to do regulations on restrictions on chemical with significant risks that "are necessary to protect adequately against an unreasonable risk" (dropping the bit about being "proportional" to the risk).

Preemption - I don't see how much difference has been made here.

In general, it gives EPA more discretion in taking actions than before.

> For a more in depth analysis by an attorney, see Bergeson & Campbell here.

It's still a discussion draft, but I don't expect that Rep. Waxman and NGOs are going to appreciate it any more than they did before.  At least it shows he's working on it.

Leave a reply